"Give Us The Freedom To Risk Rape"

[Howseitgoin]

Famed feminist Camille Paglia's interesting views on women's freedoms:

"Yes this is probably the most controversial area that I have written about.
From the start, when I became known in the early 1990s, this has been, my views on this subject have been highly inflammatory.

And I am coming to the subject from the point of view of a 1960s women, who, as a student, when I arrived as a freshman, my first year in 1964, the college, rebelled against the strict surveillance by the college administration of the lives of the women students.

This was the period that was called 'in loco parentis', that is, 'in place of the parents'. The college administrations felt that they had the obligation to supervise, to monitor, and protect the women students as they did not the male students.

Hence we had all girl dormitories and all male dormitories. The men could come and go at any hour of the day or night. We women had to sign in at 11 o'clock at night, so that the authorities of the college knew where. And we said, my generation rebelled, and called for an end to this practice. And they said, the world is dangerous, we have an obligation to protect you against rape. And what we said was 'give us the freedom to risk rape. That is true freedom'. That is what the sexual revolution gave to women.

Now, what will women do with the freedom? Feminism should have taken my view and said that 'now, you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would. You must see the world as dangerous as a man would.' You must be as defensive and hyper-aware of your surroundings as a man would. Because men too are attacked for all kinds of things. Men too are the victims of crime and so on.

Instead, we've had this process of women calling for protections, a new paternalism, from the government and now from the college administrations again. They want to draw the parent figures back into their sex lives. This to me, is a major major fault of contemporary feminism. There are great responsibilities that come with freedom. And one of them is that you must take responsibility for your own defense."

Seems particularly relevant in terms of today's demand for 'women's private spaces'

Thoughts?

Forth wave feminism might as well be a pie in the sky. We've reached equality in the law. The fact that some women can't accept biological facts and want to claim some sort of power from men is alarming and is not what most of us are wanting.

I think men hold societal power because they will always have the monopoly with regards to force. The fact that there are feminists who feel they are empowering women by asking men to hand over their power is telling on its own. Whenever you have to go to another faction and ask for power, the best you can ever hope of getting in return is an illusion of power as its never a good start to ask for the help of the other side when wanting power. We should all be thankful for everything we as people are blessed with in our society. The men we share space with are generally decent, and willing to work alongside us. The fact they actually tolerate the feminist movement is testament to their nature on the whole.

One only has to look at a country like Afghanistan to see how far women can advance in society when western men are involved. After we left the country, all it took is 3 days max for the entire country, every and all the advances in women's rights, freedoms, education, dress, and social standing to be wiped out instantly under rule of the taliban. Want to protest? Thrown in jail. It is likely the biggest wish and something most women in the world can only dream of that is to be a woman living in the West, yet the way some of us behave it's as if we have nothing and take everything for granted.

I agree with US Republican (and some liberal pro gun women) women that guns are a useful way for women to level the physical power imbalance. I'm thinking more in burglary/home invasion situations. I don't like the US concealed carry laws, though some women feel safer because of being able to do that.

The risk didn't increase. Women have been raped in their homes, in the streets, in the houses of friends, in prisons and so on since whenever. A civilized society protects women against rape with single sex spaces and refuges, does not put women in places where they will be in danger on purpose etc.

I had a little think about the idea of having the freedom to risk rape. I suspect the women who think this way have never experience sexual violence nor met anyone who has - or they would not come up with such a stupid idea. This oddly reminds me of the women who have opposed sex-based protections in the workplace because such protections would bring some women, e.g. professional women, disadvantages. No thought for the women at the bottom of the pile who have to work long shifts in factories before going home to work long domestic shifts and who could do with sex-based regulations to protect the time they need to rest at work, would protect their pregnant bodies, not require them to lift the same weights as men or do the same work as men. Women who want to be treated 'as if' they are men were unaware of the hardships caused to women in Mao's China, who were treated just like men for the purposes of work, so that menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage and childbirth were ignored in the sharing out of labour - so their bodies were wrecked and they lost babies and they suffered avoidable pain. But it was ok to Western feminists (and this goes for the Russian revolution as well) because women were being treated as equal to men.
Women are not men. We do not need to be free to be raped.

Don't worry, we will 'take care' by ensuring men are never allowed in women only spaces.

Excellent post. The only thing I would add is that men don't need to be free to be raped, either. Think of Roman male slaves who were sexually exploited, or the captured Ukranian soldiers now who get raped by Russian soldiers

The 'give us the freedom to risk rape' from that foul Paglia is nonsensical, since women who are the least free risk rape the most .

Having seen some of the posts on this thread I'm almost sure NO ONE has actually listened to the interview as if they had they'd realise the context which was actually very well thought out. I listened to it and thought Paglia was a very intelligent intellectual who'd really gave the ideas some thought.

Just remember this 'intelligent intellectual' supported NAMBLA in the 1990s w petition signing, and told the pro-paedophilia organisation IPCE that there was 'nothing wrong with erotic fondling at any age'

She may have very good ideas and be able to express them better within a given context.

On this thread her work is being used in an attempt to wedge men into womens single sex space.

So posters will show how the data (as supplied) which is being provided as "evidence" to support males being given free access to womens spaces is a flawed tool.

I don't see how that has anything to do with anyones intellectual prowess. In fact I fail to see any relevance whatsoever. I couldn't care less what anyone has done in the past including any criminal or morally questionionable behaviour. If someone has good talking points and has put some deep thought into a particular topic then they're worth listening to.

You don't think 'seeing nothing wrong with erotic fondling at any age' and supporting NAMBLA is a clear sign of lack of judgement and intelligence...?

What a fascinating viewpoint you have...😊

I've read Paglia's literary stuff : Vamps and Tramps, Sexual Personae etc She's certainly intelligent at literary analysis. On morality and politics, on the other hand...

One doesn't have to agree with someone on every topic to see that their opinion is one of great value in a different area, so no, it has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence. The fact you'd assume that all pedophiles must therefore be unintelligent just because they have a sexual preference for children is just wrong factually.

I suspect a lot of paedophiles who abuse children KNOW what they're doing is morally wrong, just do it anyway bc they're evil.

It's the fact that Paglia asserted there was 'nothing wrong' with child abuse which makes me doubt her intelligence (as well as her morality, ofc)

And youre well within the moral purview to hold that opinion I was just clarifying that intelligence has no correlation to sexual preference.

I also don't believe she advocates for the abuse of minors in the typical sense. As far as I know she was against gay men being criminalised fir sexual relationships with consenting younger boys.
I'd likely say a majority of gay man took to the trait by means of getting with an older more experienced man. It's really so much less controversial than youre making out it is. These aren't abused young straight boys. We're talking about gay boys who were happy then and would agree now they had no regrets during their younger years.

I don't think you've thought about that.

Incorrect, I'm afraid. I am certainly aware of your argument, and I reject it completely. Paglia said, as I have repeatedly quoted, that she sees 'nothing wrong with erotic fondling at any age (my italics). So she's clearly not just talking about older teen boys dating adult men (which is still wrong) .

Here is a link (TW) to her interview with the pro-paedophilia organisation IPCE, where she says that. Very interesting insight into her mind.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.ipce.info/library_2/files/paglia_guide.htm&ved=2ahUKEwiSxcmtysCPAxVUVkEAHd31JhIQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2nf6eU-n2kmH82kuOCc1g0

Furthermore, Paglia supported NAMBLA, who wanted no age of consent laws, and the right to 'have sex' with children of any age, as well as for child molesters to be released from prison.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/whatever-happened-to-nambla/.

I don't think you've thought about that.

Female-only spaces aren't a restriction for women when we can choose whether or not to use them. You are pretending that being forced to live in women's dorms with a curfew is comparable to being able to choose to use a women's DV shelter or loo. They aren't the same at all.

Being mandated to use mixed-sex spaces for purposes in which we are vulnerable, such as sleeping or attending to bodily functions, is a form of oppression and reduces our freedom because we have to withdraw from public life to protect ourselves from men's violence.

Women are raped in burkas and left alone in bikinis. What we wear has nothing to do with men's decision to commit rape.

If women are being harassed in loos in the US because of their appearance, that's a problem with the harasser, not with the existence of single-sex loos. This doesn't seem to happen in the UK much, perhaps because we have State-subsidised eye care for children and the poorest adults so most of us can see clearly to distinguish men from women?

Women are more likely than men to suffer a musculoskeletal occupational injury. https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/article/21265017/women-more-likely-to-get-hurt-on-the-job

By OP's "logic", we should welcome the freedom to be left disabled instead of demanding better working conditions that might include women doing less manual handling and having access to lifting aids.

In some countries women have no freedom at all (not allowed to drive, no skin on show, no education, no work) yet instead of making their lives safer they are made more vulnerable to abuse.

“If women are being harassed in loos in the US because of their appearance, that's a problem with the harasser, not with the existence of single-sex loos.”

Of course though, female people have been asked if they are in the correct space for them for decades and decades. There are a few differences though too. One is that with the rise of exaggerated language, is being asked now escalated to harassment? Another is with social media, are more incidents being reported and spreading internationally so it seems like there is this increase but it is not an increase in incidences of women being asked as opposed to the publicising of the incidents?

As a young person. I was often mistaken for a boy. I am not sure why it has been forgotten that female people have always asked and been asked this question. Obviously, there is a difference to being abused and being asked.

Of course women suffer more injuries with heavy physical workloads.

This is one of the issue that I find MRAs who visit MN or ill informed women who make ludicrous statements about equality keep ignoring.

How many times do we have to say that female people have had different lifting restrictions to male people under employment policies. It wasn’t ‘sexism’ to have this. The sexist discrimination part was not hiring a woman because of the different lifting restrictions when it wasn’t integral to the role and the work place wouldn’t make accommodations. Luckily, most employers make those accommodations because they want diverse skills these days.

But yes. Women were never just small men. On average, we cannot lift the same weight without greater risk of injury. If we can lift that weight, there is greater wear on our bodies and we cannot sustain that performance without high risk of injury and long term damage.

Equity to achieve equality.

I think you are missing my point & indeed the point of Paglia which was single sex spaces won't protect you from male violence because in general laws don't work on everyone. Sexual violence is still rife despite punishment because the necessary condition to sexual violence isn't a permissive society but being alone & vulnerable to predators that think they won't get caught. Laws can't change that for a certain segment of the population.

So now, on top of adding in a law that won't prevent sexual violence any less you've got the added problem of increased female/'feminine' scrutiny inviting harassment via a moral panic.

Of course there are circumstances where we can manage safer accommodations via risk assessment in prisons & provide separate spaces in dom violence shelters & hospitals. But to imagine that's possible in public loos is impossible.

I think you are missing my point & indeed the point of Paglia which was single sex spaces won't protect you from male violence because in general laws don't work on everyone. Sexual violence is still rife despite punishment because the necessary condition to sexual violence isn't a permissive society but being alone & vulnerable to predators that think they won't get caught. Laws can't change that for a certain segment of the population.

So now, on top of adding in a law that won't prevent sexual violence any less you've got the added problem of increased female/'feminine' scrutiny inviting harassment via a moral panic.

Of course there are circumstances where we can manage safer accommodations via risk assessment in prisons & provide separate spaces in dom violence shelters & hospitals. But to imagine that's possible in public loos is impossible.

Her job is to be able to string together a persuasive argument. That's what academics do - start with a premise and then construct an argument to support that premise. A lot of the commentators here disagree with the central premise of her argument.